[Tech Ethics] They Didn’t Ask to Go Viral. Posting on Social Media Without Consent Is Immoral
web.archive.org
Summary
- The article discusses the problem of non-consensual sharing of strangers' images and videos on social media platforms.
- It highlights how people sometimes exploit strangers for viral content without considering the potential harm caused.
- The author emphasizes the need for consent before posting someone's image or video and calls for a shift in societal norms regarding online privacy.
- There is a French law that entitles child influencers to demand that platforms scrub all trace of them once they turn 16.
- The article suggests that platforms could implement tools to obtain consent from strangers before posting content featuring them.
- Ultimately, the author argues that treating strangers with respect and obtaining their consent should become the standard in online interactions to foster a more ethical and civil internet culture.
It is kind of fucked up. It's one thing if someone is being abusive/combative and you're filming them for your own safety, but so many videos are of mentally ill people or addicts acting weird but not harming anyone. People in the US constantly harp on about china's social credit system, while basically making their own crowd sourced version without any limitations.
That's more terrifying than being randomly featured in something. Getting a notification that some rando filmed me asking for my consent would be way too much.
Haha, what do they have to do to find out who the subject is, right? To do this sustainably, maybe to depend on view counts, mood of responses, weirdness of subject. More algorithmic nightmare. Or maybe we can all be like the princes. Be proper all the time. Wait, that doesn't work too well, does it. 🤔
Nah, pure anarchy. If we're all weird all the time, then we'll start seeing more videos of people doing normal mundane things because that would be the weird thing socially.
Tethics!
Are you going to take Gavin’s pledge?
Not that thumbass
When you’re in public, the understanding is that you’re not in private.
It’s been this way for almost a century of photography now.
So much contemporary world history would not exist without photographs being taken without consent.
Theres some ragebait youtuber who goes up to strangers, stands about 4 or 5 feet away and just starts filming them. If they tell him not to he keeps filming, if they walk away he follows them, if they go to a cop he just walks off and if they smack him in the face he presses charges and sues... and he posts their reactions to his filming as his content.
The existing laws on photography in public are like you said, about a century old. They arent written with almost the entire first world having a hd camcorder on them at all times. They predate any form of mass communication short of the newspaper.
Id argue that something has to be done, im not sure what but the laws are out of date, it should not be legal for youtube "pranksters" to not blur peoples faces without getting release forms and then profiting off the content.
That's literal harassment.
It's pretty disingenuous to ban one action because of a separate behaviour; Like saying we shouldn't allow people to eat food in public because there's a youtuber who eats meat in front of vegans.
Yeah I agree that example borders on harassment. But also the line on just how much filming of someone in public, what they are doing, why the filming is taking place, etc, is currently not very well defined from a legal perspective. Thats the point. At what point does someones right to film or take photographs in public become harassment or a violation of the privacy of other people? Thats what needs to be examined.
It’s not about a point, it’s about the intent.